There’s a handful of people in the Montrose community who hate success and I have no idea why. The city of Montrose and its leadership team is highly respected statewide. Don’t believe me? Pick up the phone and call any other city in Colorado and they’ll confirm. Three of the five current city council members are hellbent on disruption, if not all out destruction of the accomplishments of the current leadership. Why? Because they have an influencer that for whatever reason has a personal vendetta against the city manager. He’s made it clear in his writings that have been published in the Montrose Mirror and on Mayor Michael Bagadliacco’s Colorado DOGE website over the past few years. We witnessed this play out in 2025 with Montrose County when it was Commissioner Scott Mijares who was under the influencer’s spell. The influencer has since dismissed Mijares’ behavior as a personality disorder. And as we witness this behavior in 2026 with the Montrose City Council we see the same roles with different players. Common sense is in the minority on the dais. Badagliacco first appeared on the scene in December of 2024 at city council meetings. During his three minute citizen’s public comments he spouted off, incorrectly, that the City of Montrose was in violation of the federal law for following state law when it comes to illegal immigration. Misinterpreting law, whether federal or state, is a consistent issue for the now-mayor. Badagliacco and his two cohorts on the council — Adam Woodden and Ed Ulibarri — are pushing for changes to the city charter. It started with nine amendments, now it’s down to four. The spaghetti being thrown against the wall is not sticking. The three claim they spoke with around a thousand voters during the election and this is what they wanted. The public comment during city council meetings and work sessions has been overwhelmingly against them and their changes. At the last work session one member of the public asked if there were indeed these thousand supporters that Badagliacco keeps mentioning, then where are they? They’re online, watching, was the response from the mayor. Well, let’s look at the viewer stats. For that particular Aug. 3 meeting there were a total of 113 viewers combined between the city website and YouTube. The highest number during the amendments discussion was 279 on July 21. So, let’s ask again. Where are they? When Badagliacco doesn’t have the answer he’ll make one up. Much like Mijares did, who Badagliacco supported during his implosive tenure as county commissioner. Let the flashbacks begin. These amendments — as the people keep telling them — are not thought-out at all. Changes and explanations for unintended consequences are being made off the cuff. When repeatedly asked why these changes are being proposed they give answers you expect from children who made a poor decision. “Why did you do that?” “I don’t know.” “That’s not an answer. Again, why did you do that?” “Because.” It’s exhausting. The closest the three have come to an answer is from Woodden. His answer for the chief of police and clerk amendments is so the people are closer to their accountability. As one person pointed out during public comment, that makes no sense. Currently, it is the city manager who has oversight of these positions including the hiring and firing. Montrose is still a small community and the city manager is readily available to residents. Let’s play out a scenario. Let’s say the current chief takes a position elsewhere and someone in the community has cuddled up with the majority of the council through the populists at the Republican Central Committee and wants the job. Let’s say they are not qualified for the position, but the populists really want them because they fit with their ideology. Keep in mind these three current council members' campaigns were paid for by the populists at the Republican Central Committee, who spent thousands of dollars on them, so they are beholden to them whether they’ll admit it or not. Wouldn’t the chief’s position then become a political position that is not elected by the people, but rather forced upon them by the few who have the most influence on the council? That doesn’t sound like the decision is closer to the people of Montrose, but further away. Also keep in mind that one of the council members is married to one of the populists who have influence within the central committee. When this unqualified chief is deemed by the city manager and the people as incompetent, but the majority of the council and their influencers like that the chief is carrying out their ideologies instead of the actual law, what is the recourse for the people and the administration? It’s a scary thought. And what about the clerk who oversees city elections? Do you really want elected officials to have influence over the clerk? That makes no sense. Badagliacco and the other two tell us they don’t want to be a part of the day to day operations of the police department or the clerk’s office, but if they’re going to have a vote for who’s hired or fired in the position wouldn’t they have to in some capacity? If all they’re asking for is to be informed by the city manager, the chief or the clerk on what is happening in these departments, then that’s what they already have. Council should stay out of the way of day-to-day operations; it’s not within their scope of duties. There have been two specific occasions as I watch city meetings that take me back to the county situation. One is when John Brown speaks, he sounds all too familiar to Jim Anderson. Brown for two years has gone before the past council pleading for them to declare Montrose a non-sanctuary city. He did this at almost every meeting. Brown campaigned for the three populist council members who were incorrectly declared by the central committee as certified conservatives. Since the new council has been seated he has not once asked for non-sanctuary status. Does he know something the rest of us don’t? Anderson would stand at the podium during commissioner meetings and cry that the county was diverting funds earmarked for public safety to the general fund. It was a false accusation that would have been against the law. When the people spoke out against Mijares and Sean Pond and their actions, Anderson declared he had been coming to meetings for years and asked the people where they’ve been. Brown did the same thing at the last council meeting. When the people are satisfied with the actions of their representatives then they tend to watch from a distance, but when they are unhappy they show up and speak up. Further proof that both Brown, Anderson and the populists are in the minority. The other occasion was when Melissa Hall, the wife of Chief Hall, spoke at the last council meeting. Hall spoke of her family’s law enforcement history. From her father who was wounded while on duty with the Montrose Police Department, her husband and now her son, who also serves in the department. It was a heartfelt speech that not only touched emotions but was on point when it comes to the added pressures that could be applied not only to the chief but the entire department if the amendment moves forward. The moment took me back to Montrose County Finance Director Cindy Dunlap when she defended herself against not only Jim Anderson’s accusations but others who accused her of not supporting law enforcement. Dunlap is the daughter-in-law of Rick Dunlap, who spent his working life serving in the military and law enforcement, including 12 years as Montrose County sheriff; her husband Chad is currently serving as a Colorado state trooper and her son is a member of the Montrose Police Department. She expressed that day that to accuse her of not supporting law enforcement is not only a ridiculous claim, but offensive. She knows what it’s like to exhale when a loved one walks through the door at the end of their shift. She knows what it’s like to not sleep because of worry when her loved one is on duty overnight. Cindy Dunlap and Melissa Hall know because law enforcement isn’t a paycheck for them and their families, it’s a way of life. The populists have no clue what that’s like, but they know the rhetoric and that’s what they live by. One of the three council members should find their fortitude and rescind their vote to move these charter amendments forward. It’s not bravery or an opportunity to save face to do so, but common sense. As for me, I’m looking at you Ed Ulibarri. You weren’t influenced by the populists in your 15 years of council service, so why now? Because your face and name appeared on their mailers and signs? That’s simply not a good enough reason. Do the right thing, Ed. Dennis Anderson is publisher of the Montrose Daily Press and Delta County Independent. |
No comments:
Post a Comment